COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

U.S. AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING 

AND 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0633-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 26, 1997 

MAURICE GORDON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Roger L. Williams; Vasiliki Moudilos; 

Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Anthony Fitzroy Reid; Reid & Reid, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 U.S. Automotive Manufacturing and its insurer (jointly 

referred to herein as employer) contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in (1) awarding 

compensation benefits to Maurice Gordon (claimant) pursuant to a 

theory of recovery not specifically asserted by claimant, (2) 

finding that the effects of the injuries sustained by claimant as 

the result of an idiopathic fall were increased due to the 

conditions of his employment,1

 and (3) concluding that claimant 

did not have a duty to market his residual work capacity. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 1Employer does not dispute the commission's finding that 

claimant's accident was caused by an idiopathic condition. 

Therefore, that finding is binding and conclusive upon us. 
- 2 - 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 I. 

 Contrary to employer's contention, nothing in the Workers' 

Compensation Act or the case law prohibits the commission from 

awarding compensation based upon a theory of recovery which is 

supported by the evidence but not raised by the claimant. "'The 

General Assembly established the . . . Commission for the summary 

disposition of cases arising out of industrial accidents and 

intended that it have jurisdiction to do "full and complete 

justice" in each case.'" Woody's Auto Parts v. Rock, 4 Va. App. 

8, 16, 353 S.E.2d 792, 797 (1987) (quoting Hudock v. Industrial 

Commission, 1 Va. App. 474, 480, 340 S.E.2d 168, 172 (1986) 

(citation omitted)). 

 II. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 In Virginia, "'"the effects of [an idiopathic] fall are 

compensable if the employment places the employee in a position 

increasing the dangerous effects of such a fall, such as on a 

height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving 

vehicle."'" PYA/Monarch and Reliance Ins. Co. v. Harris, 22 Va. 
- 3 - 

App. 215, 222, 468 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1996) (quoting Southland 

Corp. v. Parson, 1 Va. App. 281, 284-85, 338 S.E.2d 162, 164 

(1985) (citation omitted)). 

 In awarding compensation to the claimant for injuries 

sustained as the result of his idiopathic fall, the commission 

found as follows: 

 The claimant was standing in front of a hot 

press machine, with two pallets located in 

his workspace only eight inches apart. One 

pallet was on a metal table. Mr. [Danny] 

Jordan testified that the claimant "had to 

hit something" and observed the claimant 

bleeding from both his forehead and the back 

of his head, with the left side of his head 

on the concrete floor and the back of his 

head on the table leg. The emergency 

personnel reported that the claimant struck 

his head on a table corner and the concrete 

floor. 

 Jordan's testimony and the medical records provide credible 

evidence to support the commission's findings. Based upon this 

credible evidence, the commission could reasonably conclude that 

"'the location of the pallet and metal table, along with the 

confined space in which the claimant fell, constitutes a risk of 

the employment.' The claimant's injury [, caused by his 

idiopathic fall,] is therefore compensable as a result of the 

increased risks of his employment." 

 III. 

 In ruling that claimant had not been medically released to 

return to work, and, therefore, was not obligated to market his 

residual capacity, the commission found as follows: 

 We . . . find the claimant has not been 
- 4 - 

released to work by his treating physician, 

Dr. [David X.] Cifu. While he recommended a 

referral for return-to-work assistance, Dr. 

Cifu contemporaneously advised a 

neuropsychological evaluation for cognitive 

and pre-vocational assessment. The 

functional capacity evaluation advises 

procurement of a medical release and states 

the claimant has the "potential" to return to 

light work. The rehabilitation personnel 

also recommended continuing physical 

conditioning. There is also the matter of 

the claimant's impaired vision, which caused 

the claimant continuing difficulties as 

reported by Dr. Cifu and the rehab personnel. 

 The medical records of Dr. Cifu and the rehabilitation 

personnel and claimant's testimony provide credible evidence to 

support the commission's findings. Based upon these findings, 

the commission could reasonably conclude that claimant had not 

been medically released to return to work, and, therefore, had no 

duty to market his residual capacity. 

 For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.